3. <<Skipping user research is
extremely risky. Even the
best design ideas are just
assumptions. >>
- J. Nielsen
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/doing-ux-agile-world/
4. A person's perceptions and responses that result
from the use and/or anticipated use of a product,
system or service…including user:
• emotions,
• beliefs,
• preferences,
• perceptions,
• physical and psychological responses,
• behaviours and accomplishments
that occur before, during and after use.
- ISO 9241-210
USER EXPERIENCE
USABILITY
ACCESSIBILITY
20. PRODUCT USER EXPERIENCE
Thank you!
Simone Borsci
Senior Fellow in Human factors and User Experience of Medical devices
s.borsci@imperial.ac.uk
Editor's Notes
This paint of Giorgio De Chirico expresses the solitude of objects, and the solitude of artists who design a product. I think that this represents quite well the challenges faced by manufacturers when they aim to design something which could potentially change the world. Especially when they try to design products which have to be used by people in a high risk context.
In this picture Mark Rothko, a famous painter, is probably thinking to how to change this paint. A good painter can design something and communicate powerful insights on its own. But painting and design in general interact with our mind, while everyday products have to interact with human behaviour and drive our experience.
Good designers of interactive products cannot only simulate people experience, they need to scientifically study people experience to design a solution. User research allows us to test our assumptions and prevents cognitive bias.
In tune with the Standard, to design the experience means to capture people reactions (at different level) before, during and after the interaction. So to answer to a recent paper of NOAM TRACTINSKY, who asks if “The Usability Construct is A Dead End?” we can say that the usability is a key part of the construct of the user experience.
Medical Devices are high risk products which have to be designed by thinking to:
the overall experience of the stakeholders,
the safety of use
the overall value proposition.
To have a brilliant idea about new materials to speed-up the test, or new solutions to allow new tests is only a starting point.
In fact, every year new advanced solutions and new diagnostics test reach the market but nobody wants to use these tests. There are several reasons for that:
a lack of understanding of the barriers in the clinical pathway
a lack of understanding of the clinical usefulness
or a lack in the cost effectiveness of those products.
During the development of medical devices manufacturers need robust evidences to inform their decision making. It is maybe for that reasons that in 2010 manufactures asked to NIHR a place in which they can go to generate evidences to inform the product development. And the 4 national Diagnostic Evidence Co-operative were established.
What we are doing at NIHR Diagnostic Evidence Co-operative of London is to reduce the uncertainty at each stage of product development, not only by rigours validation and Clinical trials. But enforcing a System Perspective looking at different aspects of the innovation generation.
What we aim to do is to develop new methodologies to integrated Human factors, health economics and decision making at early stages of product design, and to support all the phases of product development by looking at different aspects (not only clinical) which could compose the Value Proposition of a device.
About medical device people want to know: Is this device cost effective? it is safe to use? it reduces or facilitates the workload of clinicians? it increases the satisfaction of all the stakeholders. All these questions are not secondary questions, and cannot be answer only at later stages of product development.
Today people are immersed in Eco-Systems of technologies. People could use multiple devices concurrently, or switching from a tool to another to perform multiple concurrent tasks. In such complex environments the access to the market, especially, in a competitive field such as the one of healthcare is hard.
The complexity of the healthcare system is well represented by the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety model. A technology or a device is never used in isolation but in combinations with other devices, with different environmental settings, organisational limitations and policy and with people with different skills and needs.
All the elements around a new technology can catalyse or be detrimental to the use of the technologies. In tune with that the Human Factors methods have the key role to model with qualitative and quantitative analysis all these factors during the development of a device to streamline the design, but also to compose a solid exploratory basis for the purpose of Health economics at early stages
Quite often, when I speak of human factors, people think to the Herry Ford quote “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses” Well, first this quote is false. Herry Ford never said that, second “if you obtain a poor answer by people you are interviewing, maybe you applied a poor methodology with poor assumptions”
To apply Human factors is much more than considering the stakeholder perspective, or the safety and the usability. It is to consider all the perspectives and needs, and to model the unmet needs and the potential barriers in the environment, and to use these evidences to effectively and efficiently change the design since from the early stage.
In fact, since from the early stages Human factors can be applied to inform the product development. While usually Health economics experts work at later stages. However, the value of using a product is a combination of the cost effectiveness (established by heath economics) and the people needs in terms of features and context of use.
There is a strong relationship between health economics and human factors which is poorly explained and considered in literature. IN FACT, conflict between people preferences and needs, and the cost-effectiveness of a device often bring to delays in the development of the product;
In tune with that my team at DEC LONDON is working to define a framework, in which Human Factors and Health Economics work together since from early stages to avoid conflicting results at advanced stages of product development
Human factors in our integrated model is considered a hub which could serve multiple purpose:
inform the design features and specification,
map the clinical pathways and define the contextual barriers
Gather and exchange preliminary information which could be modelled by health economists to support the design decision making at early stages.
Human factors help, with solid methodology, to combine all the elements in to a successful product, and to provide insights and evidences to further streamline the product in terms of health economics and marketing. Human factors is the way to do not leave a product alone and to support its route to the market.